Miller v. State, No. 20471

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation236 S.E.2d 422,269 S.C. 113
PartiesArthur Lee MILLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 20471
Decision Date19 July 1977

Page 422

236 S.E.2d 422
269 S.C. 113
Arthur Lee MILLER, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 20471.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
July 19, 1977.

Page 423

[269 S.C. 114] David H. Maring, Georgetown, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. Emmet H. Clair and Staff Atty. Katherine W. Hill, Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted on June 23, 1975 of rape. He was sentenced to fourteen (14) years imprisonment. Notice of Intent to Appeal was not given within ten days of the rising of the court as required by Section 7-405 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, 1962 which was necessary to give this Court jurisdiction of an appeal from the conviction and sentence. State v. Wright, 228 S.C. 432, 90 S.E.2d 492 (1955).

Appellant filed an application for Post Conviction Relief which was finally dismissed on December 2, 1976. On this appeal appellant raises two exceptions to the order of the lower court dismissing his application.

Exception One alleges that the lower court erred by refusing to hold that appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel. A careful review of the record convinces us that the lower court was correct in finding that appellant was adequately represented by competent counsel.

The lower court held that it was without authority to grant any relief even though appellant was denied his right to appeal and it refused to take testimony or [269 S.C. 115] rule upon several issues raised by appellant in his application for Post Conviction Relief. Exception Two alleges that such holding was error. The issues which appellant was attempting to raise were not raised at trial. His failure to raise these issues at trial constituted a waiver of any right to do so on direct appeal or Post Conviction Relief. Simmons v. State, 264 S.C. 417, 215 S.E.2d 883 (1975); Peyton v. Strickland, 262 S.C. 210, 203 S.E.2d 388 (1974); Ashley v. State, 260 S.C. 436, 196 S.E.2d 501 (1973). Consequently, it would have been a useless exercise for the lower court to take testimony and rule upon these issues as they clearly were without merit.

While this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal, in accordance with the procedure followed in White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974), we have fully reviewed the trial record in connection with the appeal before us. Our review has led to the conclusion there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, even if this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Wilson v. Ozmint, No. 03-3.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • February 17, 2004
    ...allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel." See, e.g., Cummings v. State, 274 S.C. 26, 260 S.E.2d 187, 188 (1979); Miller v. State, 269 S.C. 113, 236 S.E.2d 422 (1977) (same). The preclusive effect of an invitation of error is, if possible, more severe. See State v. Robinson, 149 S.C.......
  • State v. Vanderbilt, No. 22474
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 21, 1986
    ...decisions of this Court have impliedly overruled Griffin. See State v. Newton, 274 S.C. 287, 262 S.E.2d 906 (1980); Miller v. State, 269 S.C. 113, 236 S.E.2d 422 (1977); State v. Sachs, 264 S.C. 541, 216 S.E.2d 501 (1975). The doctrine of in favorem vitae, which applies in death penalty cas......
  • Southbridge Properties, Inc. v. Jones
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 21, 1987
    ...Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1A. Thus, the appeal must be dismissed. Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985); Miller v. State, 269 S.C. 113, 236 S.E.2d 422 IT IS SO ORDERED. ...
  • State v. Hinson, No. 23273
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 18, 1989
    ...of receipt of the order denying him a new trial, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of that order. Miller v. State, 269 S.C. 113, 236 S.E.2d 422 (1977); State v. Lawrence, 266 S.C. 423, 223 S.E.2d 856 (1976); White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 Accordingly, th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Wilson v. Ozmint, No. 03-3.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • February 17, 2004
    ...allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel." See, e.g., Cummings v. State, 274 S.C. 26, 260 S.E.2d 187, 188 (1979); Miller v. State, 269 S.C. 113, 236 S.E.2d 422 (1977) (same). The preclusive effect of an invitation of error is, if possible, more severe. See State v. Robinson, 149 S.C.......
  • State v. Vanderbilt, No. 22474
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 21, 1986
    ...decisions of this Court have impliedly overruled Griffin. See State v. Newton, 274 S.C. 287, 262 S.E.2d 906 (1980); Miller v. State, 269 S.C. 113, 236 S.E.2d 422 (1977); State v. Sachs, 264 S.C. 541, 216 S.E.2d 501 (1975). The doctrine of in favorem vitae, which applies in death penalty cas......
  • Southbridge Properties, Inc. v. Jones
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 21, 1987
    ...Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1A. Thus, the appeal must be dismissed. Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985); Miller v. State, 269 S.C. 113, 236 S.E.2d 422 IT IS SO ORDERED. ...
  • State v. Hinson, No. 23273
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 18, 1989
    ...of receipt of the order denying him a new trial, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of that order. Miller v. State, 269 S.C. 113, 236 S.E.2d 422 (1977); State v. Lawrence, 266 S.C. 423, 223 S.E.2d 856 (1976); White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 Accordingly, th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT